Examinationn of Witnesses (Questions 80-96)
KEITH DUGMORE
AND MS
JILL LEYLAND
24 MAY 2006
Q80 Mr Newmark: As well as being
user-friendly, hopefully.
Mr Dugmore: Yes.
Q81 Chairman: You analysed very well
in your submissions this issue of us emerging with two classes
of statistics, if you like, the ones which are officially badged
as National Statistics and then all the other, and you talk about
the risk of ending up with these two different classes. I am not
quite clear about your solution. You seem to be saying that all
you have got to do really is just improve the standard to which
the second category is produced. Is that sufficient? You would
in essence beef-up the Code of Practice or make sure that they
complied with it?
Mr Dugmore: Yes, I think that
is the case, that the Code of Practice needs to be beefed-up,
but I think it is also important to recognise that I think for
the great majority of users in the wide world, first of all they
do not draw any distinctions as to where statistics come from
within Government, it is just Government official data and they
do not have any subtleties about which departments in particular,
and from then on they are essentially wanting to get what they
can across a wide range of topics of interest to them. They want
to be in a position to think that all of the statistics are reasonably
reliable and confirm to a Code of Practice, so distinctions as
to which ones are National Statistics and which ones are not do
not cross a lot of users' paths, I think.
Q82 Chairman: No, but that distinction
would persist under the new arrangements?
Mr Dugmore: I think we see them
as all official statistics.
Ms Leyland: The consultation document
proposes that they would persist, yes. We see that as something
which is wrong, because I think it also seems to be a very arbitrary
distinction at times.
Q83 Chairman: Sure, but under your
model if some statistics did not meet this higher threshold of
the beefed-up Code of Practice, then what would happen to them?
They would still be there, would they not, and they would still
be departmental, statistical—
Mr Dugmore: Yes, I think they
would, and there are statistics which emerge through local government
and through agencies which are out and beyond the GSS.
Ms Leyland: But the aim should
be that all statistics should be produced according to the Code
of Practice. This does not necessarily mean that they have to
be highly accurate. You cannot always get accurate statistics.
You make them as good as you can and you cross-check when you
can and you are honest about any shortcomings. I think it should
be possible to have a Code of Practice which applies to all statistics,
whether they are administrative statistics or collected for the
purpose.
Q84 John Thurso: You will be surprised
to hear I would like to pursue a question about Devolution. I
know you were here through the previous two lots of witnesses,
so can we cut a lot of the questions by just asking you, do you
broadly agree with what was said, particularly the comment made
by John Pullinger and Professor Holt that this is a fundamental?
Ms Leyland: Yes.
Mr Dugmore: Could I just pick
up one extra point on that? I think we thoroughly agree and think
that this is absolutely core to the assessment of this. One other
aspect is that there are quite a lot of organisations who are
interested in doing a lot of comparisons within the UK, and it
is just as important to them. So if you were looking at large
financial services bodies, or retail companies who are thinking,
"Which customers should I be targeting and where should I
invest?" I think Marks & Spencer this morning said that
they have made about £700 million this year. They want to
look across the whole of the UK as to which parts of the UK they
might invest in and in practical terms if it is terribly easy
to get data for England but pretty difficult to get it for Scotland
and Northern Ireland, the analysts will sometimes just turn a
blind eye and focus on the areas where it is easier to get data
for.
Q85 John Thurso: You have neatly
pre-empted the question I was going to ask, which is what is the
impact from the users' side of this clear mis-match that we have
established, and you have given one example. Are there others?
Mr Dugmore: I suppose the example
I have given is from the commercial world, but it should also
equally apply for investments in public services. If we look at
neighbourhood statistics and the idea of targeting investment
in areas of neighbourhood renewal, at the moment we are in a situation
where we have different analyses of indices of deprivation in
different countries of the UK and one cannot get a consistent
measure of whether parts of Glasgow are worse than parts of the
East End of London. So again looking at UK-wide investment, being
able to do such comparisons is vital.
Q86 John Thurso: Yes. Interestingly,
if we ever decided to move away from the Barnet formula to a genuine
needs-based funding in deprived areas within the nations, we have
no tools with which to be able to do that. In the Treasury's consultation
document there is very little about devolved administrations but
they cover it at 4.46 and 4.47 and broadly it simply says, "We
like the system as it is and we are going to stick with it."
I find it very difficult to understand, as somebody who knows
absolutely nothing about statistics and had an entirely humanities
education, that all the witnesses who come before us, who are
clearly people who all know exactly what they are talking about,
have all been unanimous. I have never sat on a committee where
so many witnesses have agreed. It seems to me quite surprising
that the Treasury would not have picked up on this. How do you
account for that? I know you do not have to, but would you like
to take a flyer at it?
Ms Leyland: I am not sure I would
want to comment about the Treasury. I think it is because it is
a longstanding problem and it is something which has been lived
with. It predates Devolution, as I think Alison pointed out. It
has probably been made a little worse by Devolution and in a sense
it is sort of baked into the cake, given the legislation.
Mr Dugmore: I think that is probably
right. I think it is probably, as I would characterise it, a sort
of supply/supplier's view, "This is the structure we have
got. We have got to work within it," and it is not sensitive
to the fact that there are people out there who are the actual
customers and users of statistics saying, "Why on earth can
I not grab the same thing for Northern Ireland as I can for Devon
and Cornwall, or whatever?"
Q87 John Thurso: So to be fair to
the Government, this is not a problem which is a consequence of
Devolution, it is a problem which has been brought into focus
by Devolution?
Mr Dugmore: Yes.
Ms Leyland: Yes.
Q88 Mr Todd: Mr Dugmore, you made
a remark right at the start which prompted some interest in me
when you discussed access to data. One of the dimensions which
we have not explored is the way in which government agencies or
departments may directly control data either through exclusive
rights of some kind (a classic example of that would be Ordnance
Survey) or through an exclusive third party contract, and you
mentioned county court judgments, where I believe that does apply
and there is an exclusive contractor who provides data for those
seeking to use that particular set of information. Is that an
area which you have some concern about?
Mr Dugmore: I am really pleased
you have mentioned that, actually, because to some extent it might
appear to be outwith this, but I think it is very important.
Q89 Mr Todd: I think it has some
relevance.
Mr Dugmore: Yes. In the case of
county court judgments, I think perhaps all is not lost, because
some statistics from those are shortly to be included on the ONS
statistics website, so some of this is being brought back into
the Government world and they have published the statistics. In
the case of Ordnance Survey, amongst a great number of users of
statistics who I talk to it is a matter of considerable frustration
in that as soon as you are looking at statistics for small areas
you want map background data. Also, you typically are interested
in address files and post codes and we have been in the situation
where there was a proposal last summer for a national spatial
address infrastructure, a definitive list of addresses throughout
the country. Ordnance Survey, local government and the Post Office
were brought together with the idea of concocting this, but it
all fell apart, not on technical grounds but over arguments about
intellectual property rights and money, who got what and who could
stop the other chap getting something. So from an outsider's viewpoint,
the technical resources are there, which will be extremely useful,
but it has not been possible to join up parts of Government.
Q90 Mr Todd: All these statistics
you have mentioned are within public ownership and are contributed
to by us as citizens.
Mr Dugmore: Yes, but I think the
Post Office is a limited company with one shareholder and Ordnance
Survey is a trading fund, but again people just view them essentially
as arms of Government.
Q91 Mr Todd: Is there a role which
a Statistics Commission or some other body which might be set
up through this particular step—because, to be honest, this
is an opportunity through an Act of Parliament to establish a
tighter rein over the way in which statistics are monitored and
developed in this country. Is there an opportunity here to look
at the way in which the state manages our data and makes it available
to users like yourselves or ordinary citizens like myself?
Mr Dugmore: I think there is,
in that there is a risk of drawing the boundaries very narrowly
and saying essentially we are talking about just numbers and tables,
but people who use numbers and tables are interested in maps and
address lists, and so on, and looking at international comparisons
I think the United States, somewhat surprisingly, has an attitude
that all this is pretty well free and in the public domain.
Q92 Mr Todd: They are the classic
liberal model.
Mr Dugmore: Yes, and from a user's
viewpoint that has immense attractions.
Q93 Mr Todd: Let me return to the
question I was supposed to be asking, which was about public perceptions
of statistics that you, as users, obtain. Do you find that public
perceptions of the reliability of that information has declined,
or have you always accepted them, because I think you heard my
remark that scepticism about statistics is not a novel thought?
Mr Dugmore: Perhaps if I have
a quick word and then Jill will chime in as well. I think there
are concerns, but I do not have a great deal more to add than
what was said earlier on about the issue of standards, and so
on. I think it is important to recognise that there are also quite
a lot of users in the wider world who are not especially concerned
about release times, release dates, and so on. They are interested
in, "Can I get hold of some information on ethnic minorities'
income levels," or whatever and they are not aware it was
published on a particular day or that a minister got involved.
They are end consumers who gather up statistics.
Q94 Mr Todd: For example, as a business
user, you would not find that the fact that there has been a certain
amount of kerfuffle over a minister releasing this information
early or something would be a particularly material issue in the
reliability of the data itself?
Mr Dugmore: It would be of great
importance to some users, but other users would not regard it
as important. It is a very mixed bag.
Ms Leyland: You wanted our views
on whether the confidence or lack of confidence has grown. It
is hard to say, I think. I think part of it is because there has
been so much in the newspapers and in the media generally about
issues like school performance tables, waiting lists, so it has
brought it all into focus. The ONS has done, I think, a couple
of surveys of confidence, but that is only relatively recent and
those sorts of surveys you have really got to do for a while to
establish a track record and see how they are evolving. But certainly
there always has been scepticism. If you mention you are a statistician
to anybody, "Oh, lies, damn lies and statistics," you
know. It comes back. It is hard wired into people's conscientiousness.
I think, too, there is also a certain scepticism always about
Government. Up to a point it is healthy in a democracy, but—
Q95 Mr Todd: Indeed.
Ms Leyland: But there are concerns
definitely at the moment. Whether they are better or worse than
in the past is a moot issue, but there are concerns.
Q96 Mr Todd: Would an independent
board make a difference, do you think? I think you mentioned a
sort of whistle factor, of someone being able to say, "We
object to this particular set of statistics," or a previous
witness did.
Mr Dugmore: I think the trust
will just be increased the greater the distance there is between
any perception of political interference really.
Chairman: All right. We are going to
leave it there. Thank you very much. I am sorry we kept you waiting
for your session. We have kept you longer than would otherwise
have been the case, but it has been very helpful to us. Thank
you very much.
| 
